UFOs?

[Brett327]

Point of order, fundamentally, atheism is not a religion. I know that some people invent their own dogma surrounding it, but it's a classic category error to view it as such. Just like an empty plate is not food, atheism is the absence of belief in the supernatural.

This is a difficult concept for some. I'm here to help.

 

[nittany03]

Point of order, fundamentally, atheism is not a religion. I know that some people invent their own dogma surrounding it, but it's a classic category error to view it as such. Just like an empty plate is not food, atheism is the absence of belief in the supernatural.

This is a difficult concept for some. I'm here to help.

One could make the philosophical distinction that agnosticism is the absence of a belief, whereas atheism is the belief in an absence.

 

[Brett327]

One could make the philosophical distinction that agnosticism is the absence of a belief, whereas atheism is the belief in an absence.

That would also be a category error.

 

[Mirage]

Point of order, fundamentally, atheism is not a religion. I know that some people invent their own dogma surrounding it, but it's a classic category error to view it as such. Just like an empty plate is not food, atheism is the absence of belief in the supernatural.

This is a difficult concept for some. I'm here to help.

True, but you and religious folks have the most important characteristic in common - neither of you require real evidence to believe you've solved life's greatest mysteries

 

[Brett327]

True, but you and religious folks have the most important characteristic in common - neither of you require real evidence to believe you've solved life's greatest mysteries

Nope - atheists haven't solved those mysteries... and we're OK with some things remaining unknown. This is the complete opposite of religious thinking on those themes.

 

[Jim123]

A lot of theology is based on certain things being and remaining mysteries. Not all faith teachings, dogma, or doctrine seeks to definitively explain every single thing, there are some religious concepts that are, well, mysteries, explicitly meant for us to not figure out in this life. It's a philosophically different approach than atheism but ironically the two views have a small sliver in common there.

Just saying.

 

[Brett327]

A lot of theology is based on certain things being and remaining mysteries. Not all faith teachings, dogma, or doctrine seeks to definitively explain every single thing, there are some religious concepts that are, well, mysteries, explicitly meant for us to not figure out in this life. It's a philosophically different approach than atheism but ironically the two views have a small sliver in common there.

Just saying.

Not to belabor the point, but I think there's an important difference between "God wants X to remain vague or mysterious" vs. "humankind's understanding of the universe hasn't figured X out yet... and may never do so."

It occurs to me that from an epistemological point of view, exactly what God intends on remaining a mystery depends on where in history one asks the question. The number of natural phenomena attributable to God/supernatural increases as you go back in time. Either God has a sliding scale for things he's responsible for, or this is a fundamentally flawed way to understand knowledge itself.

Supernatural explanations for knowledge gaps are the ultimate false dichotomy.

 

[FinkUFreaky]

Makes sense that when we didn't know shit, God was the cause (ie the thunderstorm was punishment for beating my wife yesterday). Now, God created the environment that caused the thunderstorm. I'm totally OK with people believing that. It's certainly possible, and I believe that as much as I believe that aliens possibly created humanity and are monitoring us or that we were spontaneously created. We don't know yet. I personally don't believe in the God that knows how many hairs I have on my head, or cares. We're ants on a farm, even if a God created us. In my view. And I'm OK with people that do believe he truly cares. Prayer has helped many many individuals in time of strife, to include those in my immediate family. Even if it was only helping their mental state; I can't say whether their prayers were answered by an omnipotent God, or if it helped them get through the crisis mentally.

I'd say Agnostic is different than Atheist (and why some would claim Athiesm is a religion in it's own right) because (some) Athiests like to proselytize on their beliefs of no God whereas agnostics acknowledge that they truly don't know.

One hundred thousand million galaxies, each with one hundred thousand million stars. How Stephen Hawking used to put it (yes it's the same as one hundred billion, but for some people, myself included, having never counted in the billions, it's more relatable). Entirely possible that a civilization that "began" millions of years before us would have technology that we can't detect or describe. I've never been abducted by aliens, and I don't spend anything other than really bored free time examining it. But it also strikes me as somewhat a religious belief to declare that we are the only special species that naturally evolved, and it couldn't be possible that there is other life out there with the technology we don't understand to be able to make interstellar travel. I'm not a believer in ET, but to say it's not possible takes it's own religious zeal to say.

 

[Jim123]

I think Hawking was counting using the Queen's English when he said one hundred thousand million. After all, he used to teach math at Cambridge.

 

[Brett327]

I'd say Agnostic is different than Atheist (and why some would claim Athiesm is a religion in it's own right) because (some) Athiests like to proselytize on their beliefs of no God whereas agnostics acknowledge that they truly don't know.

Atheism either is or is not a religion. If characterizing it as a religion requires an act of proselytization, and some atheists proselytize while others do not, then that would mean that athesim is simultaneously a religion, and not a religion. That's somewhat problematic.

 

[FinkUFreaky]

I know plenty of Christians that don't proselytize... While some are more about it as part of their religious beliefs than others, would you then say that a Catholic that didn't try to convert their Baptist friends isn't a real Catholic? If that's what you are saying then I would understand where you are coming from; but would only disagree in that I believe it's OK to believe in the religion and not try to convince others.

Edit: I also am totally OK with atheists!! I don't care what others believe in, truly. Unless they are trying to cause harm to me and mine, because of their religious or lack thereof beliefs.

Edit 2: and if you are referring to my use of it as a definition of a religion, that wasn't my intent (I could have been more clear). It's just something in common with religion, which is why I mentioned some people would consider it one. I didn't say that I do. Again, my intent is not to convert ANYONE into being Agnostic! I don't care what other people believe in as long as it doesn't cause harm... I'm not a history major but the inquisition and crusades probably brought harm. ISIS and Al Quaeda brought harm. I'm not OK with those things...

 

[Brett327]

I know plenty of Christians that don't proselytize...

Does that mean Christianity is not a religion?

would you then say that a Catholic that didn't try to convert their Baptist friends isn't a real Catholic?

I wouldn't say that, though I suspect some doctrinaire Catholics might.

if you are referring to my use of it as a definition of a religion, that wasn't my intent

I know - not arguing with you per se. This is a good discussion. I was just illustrating that it's not a very logical way to view atheism. There are lots of things I could persuade someone to stop believing in that don't involve religion. If I told a child the Tooth Ferry is a lie that they should no longer believe in, that's not engaging in religious activity.

People like to place atheism into the religious (or religion-adjacent) category in an attempt to disarm atheist critiques of religion. At its core, atheism doesn't require faith, or dogma of any kind. It isn't like a religion at all. It's the complete opposite.

 

[IKE]

While Nassim Taleb would disagree, religion to me = faith-based philosophy. To me, the term atheism misses the point, but there is no exact term in the common lexicon (e.g., areligious or afaithful), and I'm not one for pedantic neologisms. Ultimately for me the question of atheism vs. religion is an epistemological one, namely is knowledge properly gained solely via reason (atheism) or also via faith (religion).

IMO, faith (belief in the absence of evidence or in the presence of contrary evidence) is diametrically opposed to reason. Saying "God does not exist" is less a dogmatic statement, and certainly not a statement of evidence-based fact. It is shorthand for "there is zero evidence for God, and an omnipotent/omniscient God is a logical impossibility, therefore I'm going to live my life as if there is no God, and not believe in his existence."

Alien claims, like most God belief, fall into the not even wrong category.

 

[Brett327]

While Nassim Taleb would disagree, religion to me = faith-based philosophy. To me, the term atheism misses the point, but there is no exact term in the common lexicon (e.g., areligious or afaithful), and I'm not one for pedantic neologisms. Ultimately for me the question of atheism vs. religion is an epistemological one, namely is knowledge properly gained solely via reason (atheism) or also via faith (religion).

IMO, faith (belief in the absence of evidence or in the presence of contrary evidence) is diametrically opposed to reason. Saying "God does not exist" is less a dogmatic statement, and certainly not a statement of evidence-based fact. It is shorthand for "there is zero evidence for God, and an omnipotent/omniscient God is a logical impossibility, therefore I'm going to live my life as if there is no God, and not believe in his existence."

Alien claims, like most God belief, fall into the not even wrong category.

Well said.

 

[Griz882]

People like to place atheism into the religious (or religion-adjacent) category in an attempt to disarm atheist critiques of religion. At its core, atheism doesn't require faith, or dogma of any kind. It isn't like a religion at all. It's the complete opposite.

The courts would disagree. To have legal standing in a anti-religion case (think prayer in school) atheism is indeed considered a religion without theism. In short, if an atheist demonstrates that his beliefs constitute a framework by which he lives (there is no god) and it guides and directs his life, it qualifies as “religion.”